Api chat questionnaire runs update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description adds only 'Experimental', which signals instability but does not explain what the update mutates, what happens to existing prefill run data, or any permission constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short fragment, so it is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded statement of the update action or its effect.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an update endpoint with an undocumented body parameter, no output schema, and a dense set of sibling routes, the description is far too sparse. It leaves the agent unable to distinguish this tool from partial_update or understand what a valid update payload looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description provides no information about the required 'id' or the opaque 'body' object, so an agent cannot infer what fields the update payload should contain or what the identifier refers to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Experimental: questionnaire prefill runs' names the resource area but does not state that this is an update operation or what is being updated. It largely restates a fragment of the tool name and does not distinguish the tool from the sibling partial_update endpoint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this full-update endpoint versus the sibling partial_update, create, retrieve, or extract_questions tools. 'Experimental' hints at caution but does not tell an agent when or when not to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.